Understanding the Congressional effort to arm the Peshmerga

Shortly before the U.S. Congress left Washington for Christmas break, the House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously approved a bill (H.R. 1654) authorizing direct U.S. arms sales to the Kurdistan Regional Government. There is some confusion surrounding this issue, which involves two, related questions: 1) Are the Peshmerga getting the arms that they need to fight ISIS?  And 2) Is the U.S. already providing arms directly to the KRG and, thereby, avoiding the obstacles that Baghdad might raise?

The Obama administration, including Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, maintains that the U.S. Is “already sending arms directly to the Kurds.” In some sense, that is true.  Mr. Carter just visited Erbil, where he met with the senior Kurdish leadership and announced that the U.S. would immediately provide Peshmerga forces with “two brigades’ worth of equipment” to help prepare for the upcoming battle to liberate Mosul.

That is a significant military shipment, but does it mean that the Kurds have—or will have—the arms that they need? German army officer, Col. Bernd Prill, who heads the international coalition’s efforts to train the Peshmerga offered a different perspective.  When asked if the Peshmerga had enough arms even to defend their current positions against ISIS attack, Col. Prill replied, “I think it's never enough ... and of course, they need more,” as he explained that the Kurds were defending an extremely long, 1,000 kilometer front.

Col. Prill’s comments echo the complaint of KRG intelligence chief, Masrour Barzani, who recently informed the Wall Street Journal in a lengthy interview, “We haven’t received the kind of equipment we want or the amount we need.” Indeed, that is also the view of Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.  As Rep. Royce noted, combatting ISIS, the Peshmerga have taken substantial casualties—8,500 killed and wounded, but are still obliged to fight with light “antiquated weapons” from Saddam Hussein’s era and even decades earlier.

The Iraqi government plays a central role in the current mechanism for providing U.S. military supplies to the Peshmerga. Thus, arms shipments intended for the Peshmerga are subject to delay or even diversion.  Indeed, that is just what happened, as the U.S., responding to the ISIS crisis that suddenly erupted last year, began to re-arm the Peshmerga.  It is one major reason for the House legislation.  As the text of the House bill explains, “In the initial phase of the resupply effort, the Government of Iraq constrained and delayed the emergency supply of weapons to the Kurdistan Regional Government.”

To be sure, the U.S. army can physically deliver arms to the Peshmerga—and it has done so. But those deliveries need Baghdad’s approval.  Official U.S. arms sales require an End User Certificate—and the end user must be a government.  Hence, the end user in all deliveries of arms to the Peshmerga by the U.S. military is the Baghdad government. 

The Committee’s bill would allow the KRG to serve, instead, as the end-user. Such a designation might be seen to touch on the sensitive question of national sovereignty, and has already provoked opposition from Baghdad, which called the bill “unwise and unnecessary,” as well as from the Obama administration.

Rep. Royce has said that he will introduce H.R. 1654 for a vote by the full House in the new year. There is a general—and growing—consensus that ISIS is a serious threat to the U.S. and other Western countries.  There is also a general consensus that the Kurds have proven themselves the most effective force in fighting ISIS.  Indeed, in Erbil, Mr. Carter praised them highly, saying ”The Kurdish Peshmerga have been exactly what we have been looking for in this whole fight in Iraq and Syria, namely a capable and motivated force that we can enable.” 

Logic says that H.R. 1654 should become U.S. law. However, it still faces an uphill battle, as the full House, Senate, and the White House must approve it.  Yet the new bill is a significant and positive step forward.  And if the White House were really to become seized of the urgency in defeating ISIS, it might truly become law.  But until now, unfortunately, President Obama still does not believe that to be an urgent task.